If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Details on latest cba proposal

The proposal from NBA owners that the NBA Players Association rejected last week called for the implementation of a hard salary cap at a figure lower than the league's current cap, but not until the 2013-14 season, according to sources familiar with the offer.

Sources told ESPN.com this week that the central change made by owners to past collective bargaining proposals called for easing in a more restrictive financial landscape over a three-season cycle as opposed to trying to impose a hard salary ceiling with immediate effect next season.

The league, sources said, regards this as a major concession, since the next two seasons would employ a salary-cap system with luxury-tax penalties not unlike the system currently in place. Teams currently operate with a salary cap of $58 million per franchise, with a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax imposed for every dollar teams spend over the tax threshold of $70.3 million.

Sources said the owners' latest proposal, however, does still call for immediate rollbacks of 15 percent, 20 percent or 25 percent to current contracts depending on salary levels, as part of the league's oft-stated desire to reduce payroll by roughly $800 million leaguewide on an annual basis.

The NBA's ongoing push for such sharp salary reductions, sources said, is what caused the quick rejection from the players' side, with the union also still determined to oppose a hard cap.

The NBA, sources said, likewise hopes to implement even lower salaries for rookies than they currently make based off the league's rookie scale The league also would like to propose new rules that make it hugely advantageous for marquee players to stay with the teams that draft them.

The new rules would grant teams the ability to offer even more years and dollars to a designated "star" player than current rules allow, heeding the clamor from various small-market teams for such a measure after last summer's free-agent defections of LeBron James and Chris Bosh to Miami and the trades that sent Carmelo Anthony to New York and Deron Williams to New Jersey.

An SI.com report Wednesday said that teams, under the NBA's proposal, would not be able to unilaterally "tag" a player to be their designated star, as NFL teams can by using their "franchise tag" to prevent one chosen player from becoming a free agent. Under the NBA's proposal rejected by the union last week, teams would only be able to designate one player for preferential contract treatment if the player agreed to it.

Another key wrinkle from the rejected proposal, sources said, called for the ability for each team to shed one contract outright before next season through a one-time amnesty provision that wipes that contract off a team's books -- even though the player must still be paid -- reminiscent of a similar provision in the summer of 2005.

Although the players quickly rejected last week's proposal, sources close to the process have expressed mild optimism about the league's increased willingness to negotiate before the current labor agreement expires June 30.

ESPN.com's Henry Abbott reported Tuesday that Stern and NBPA executive director Billy Hunter have been quietly meeting face-to-face to negotiate on a fairly regular basis. The sides, sources said, met last week in Chicago with staffers from both sides present. The two sides are also set to talk this week in New York.

NBA owners are expected to lock out their players on July 1 if there is no new deal before the June 30 deadline. But against a backdrop of labor strife and ongoing legal action in the NFL, representatives of both the NBA and the players' union have recently softened their public rhetoric.
NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver said April 15 that the league's goal is "a system in which all 30 teams can compete, and, if they are well-managed, to make a profit. We have never suggested to the union that there's only one way to accomplish that end."

But players' association president Derek Fisher of the Los Angeles Lakers, explaining the union's quick dismissal of the league's latest offer, told ESPN.com last week: "Unfortunately, the proposal is very similar to the proposal the league submitted over a year ago. This last proposal doesn't look close to what we were expecting."

The union has pushed for a revenue deal similar to the current one, with Hunter insisting that a hard salary cap would effectively end guaranteed contracts, which he calls "the lifeblood" of professional basketball.

"We've had that right for years, and it's not something we're trying to give up," Hunter has said.

The league recently announced that, in addition to soaring TV ratings this season, 2010-2011 ticket sales were up roughly one percent. The union contends that the league's recent surge in popularity might have wiped out the losses caused by the recent recession, but league officials say that their overall loss has been reduced only from $340 million last season to $300 million this season, asserting that 22 of the NBA's 30 teams are losing money.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Manguera For This Useful Post:

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

I haven't seen this posted yet.
I like the idea of the cap being lower then the current soft cap instead of the LT threshold. IMO the lower the cap, the easier it will be to compete for players and the harder is will be for deep pocket teams to stockpile multiple superstars.
I don't see players salaries getting rolled back as proposed.
If the cap takes 2 years to implement that changes they way we need to look at our current cap space.
The amnesty clause is something I thought they'd offer to get teams under the cap quicker. We could see a lot of bargains floating around at the start of the season if this happens.
I know these are only proposals and none of these proposals may make it into the next cba. I'm glad we have to wait until the new cba is in place to spend any of our cap space. Changes like this give the Pacers a lot to consider before spending and may create a lot of opportunities that we didn't expect to be there.

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

What do the players think about the 22 of 30 NBA teams losing money? What do the players expect that they would have to give up going into this deal. Do they really think it should all go on business as usual?

At some point there has to be a collective recognition that the league is not sustainable the way they like it.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to graphic-er For This Useful Post:

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

If a cap like this makes it in and player salary rollbacks don't then Miami would be playing 3 on 5 by the 13/14 season since the big 3 combine for 58 million at that point. Obviously they'd have to be broken up in that scenerio.
Whatever happens I think any reduction to a hard salary cap will result in an Amnesty player clause. I wouldn't expect any all stars to be waived but some teams may be forced to trade away some great talent, and you could see some starting quality players available. I can't remember how it worked that last time with the Allan Houston rule. Where waived players available for the vet min. to their new team?

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

Have the players come up with ANY proposals? I'm asking because myabe they have but I haven't seen them. So far all I've seen is proposals by the league that are rejected by the players.

There haven't been that many proposals actually. This is the same one that has been reported before. There have been 2 formal offers from the owners, and one counter proposal from the players. Unsurprisingly, the players' proposal is to keep the current system in place. I think the players' concession is to reduce their 57% share of BRI to 51%, which represents a $200-300m reduction in player salaries. The owners however are looking for cutbacks of ~$800m, as well as a new system in place (hard cap, unguaranteed contracts, etc). It's pretty clear that closing the gap on this isn't going to be easy.

As far as the Pacers are concerned, salary rollbacks and amnesty clauses wouldn't benefit us at all. We've gone through 3 painful years of housecleaning, and as a result we're fresh out of overpaid players. If anything, an amnesty clause helps the teams in cap hell that we were planning to take advantage of in uneven trades.

It's true though that an amnesty clause could add a few quality free agents to the market, like Michael Finley the last time there was an amnesty clause. More likely though, it will be the likes of Rashard Lewis, Gilbert Arenas, Baron Davis.

Yes, the Pacers waived Reggie Miller, but he had retired by then. In fact, most teams chose to use the amnesty rule on previously waived players. Finley was the best I think among the amnesty casualties.

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

What do the players think about the 22 of 30 NBA teams losing money? What do the players expect that they would have to give up going into this deal. Do they really think it should all go on business as usual?

At some point there has to be a collective recognition that the league is not sustainable the way they like it.

At this point the players are on record as believing the losses are paper (depreciation) or involving expenses unrelated to operations (interest on loans for purchasing the franchise).

I suspect the toughness from the owners is about to dissipate in a blast of sound and fury, signifying nothing, as we go forward essentially unchanged into the brave new world of 4-6 super teams and 24-26 Washington Generals.

BillS

"Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
- Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

The player's willingness to cut back the player share of the BRI from 57% to 51% is a good sign. That seems to indicate the disagreement is not about whether to cut the player share, but how much to cut. Something like that would reduce the salary cap to about $50M, the luxury tax level to $60M.

I expect something close to those numbers as the final settlement. A salary cap of about $50M with the luxury tax starting imediately. and a hard cap of between $60M and $70M. In either case, teams with big salaries will have to cut guys to get under the new hard cap.

that soft-cap/hard-cap arrangement will allow the continuation of exceptions like the MLE, but only up to a certain amount. Players want the exceptions to avoid having teams with 3 max salaries and 10 minimum salaries. The immediate luxury tax provides a kind of revenue sharing that the NBAPA wants in the contract.

Pacers [and other teams under the $50M salary cap number should be able to get some good players for cheap.

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

As far as the Pacers are concerned, salary rollbacks and amnesty clauses wouldn't benefit us at all. We've gone through 3 painful years of housecleaning, and as a result we're fresh out of overpaid players. If anything, an amnesty clause helps the teams in cap hell that we were planning to take advantage of in uneven trades.

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

As far as the Pacers are concerned, salary rollbacks and amnesty clauses wouldn't benefit us at all. We've gone through 3 painful years of housecleaning, and as a result we're fresh out of overpaid players. If anything, an amnesty clause helps the teams in cap hell that we were planning to take advantage of in uneven trades.

It's true though that an amnesty clause could add a few quality free agents to the market, like Michael Finley the last time there was an amnesty clause. More likely though, it will be the likes of Rashard Lewis, Gilbert Arenas, Baron Davis.

Good point on the negative side of the amnesty clause. I think you're on target with the 3 waived players and that's the type of players that will be waived first. Of course we'd still be able to waive Posey and get further under the new cap. While waiving a player now would completely bail out some teams, many would still need to move more long term contracts to get to the hard cap, they'd just have 2 years to make it happen. In a case like Miami I wouldn't see them waiving any of the big 3, but they'd know they have to move one of them within the 2 year window. I'd be interested in knowing if they'd be able to use any exceptions to add players during that window as long as they were over the cap or if we'd be allowed to go over the cap during that window if we wanted to.
No matter how you look at it, our cap space will have more value but we may want to hold onto it for an additional year.

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

When figuring teams potential cap room next season, you'll need to figure in an amnesty provision. I'll be shocked if there's not one in the new CBA.

You could call it the Gilbert Arenas provision or the Rashard Lewis provision. Both will be waived using this. Other candidates include Baron Davis, Richard Hamilton, Travis Outlaw, Josh Childress, Nate Robinson, James Posey, Andres Nocioni, and Luke Walton. But the biggest name, and the most surprising name to many people, will be Brandon Roy. I don't see any way the Blazers can justify keeping him with his contract, his knees, and the backup options they have on the roster (Wallace, Batum, Matthews, and Fernandez).

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

If the hard cap doesn't take effect until the 13/14 season, it might not make sense to waive a player who expires prior to that. Arenas is almost certain to be waived since he'll make over 22 mil in the 13/14 season but the Wizards might want to waive someone other then Lewis since his contract doesn't run that long. A team like the Pacers who doesn't have anyone under contract that far out that they'd want to waive might as well waive Posey unless they see more value in his expiring contract. You may be right about Brandon Roy who is due almost 18 mil in the 13/14 season.

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

As far as the Pacers are concerned, salary rollbacks and amnesty clauses wouldn't benefit us at all. We've gone through 3 painful years of housecleaning, and as a result we're fresh out of overpaid players.

Of course salary rollbacks will help us just not at this particular time but we can't really keep up with the big boys over the long term.

For the market we have our salaries should be in the bottom third of nba team salaries. The idea for this team to spend and spend is unsustainable.

Anyone who wants to see the pacers as competitive as the big market teams has to be in favor of rollbacks. Any owner not named Simon would not tolerate the losses this team incurred over the years.

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

When you look payrolls committed through 13/14 most teams would be able to get under the proposed hard cap by adding a few minimum salary players to fill out their rosters. Most of course would still want to use the waiver or they wouldn't like what they had left to field a team.
Teams that wouldn't likely be able to do this without a trade or waiver would be.

The rollbacks being discussed here are on existing salaries. We have literally no bad contracts left on the payroll. Posey maybe, but he's an expiring contract anyway. Only Danny, Dahntay, and Posey are on non-rookie deals. Any rollback we get on their contracts will have minimal effect.

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

The rollbacks being discussed here are on existing salaries. We have literally no bad contracts left on the payroll. Posey maybe, but he's an expiring contract anyway. Only Danny, Dahntay, and Posey are on non-rookie deals. Any rollback we get on their contracts will have minimal effect.[/QUOTE
I see your point but the rollbacks on existing contracts are unlikely to be really significant. The significant changes will be on future contracts. No one agrees to significant cuts in their salaries but will agree to cuts in contracts that aren't negotiated. In other words players are counting on the money they think is owed to them. But we may be talking about different aspects of the proposal after all.

Re: Details on latest cba proposal

There haven't been that many proposals actually. This is the same one that has been reported before. There have been 2 formal offers from the owners, and one counter proposal from the players. Unsurprisingly, the players' proposal is to keep the current system in place. I think the players' concession is to reduce their 57% share of BRI to 51%, which represents a $200-300m reduction in player salaries. The owners however are looking for cutbacks of ~$800m, as well as a new system in place (hard cap, unguaranteed contracts, etc). It's pretty clear that closing the gap on this isn't going to be easy.

As far as the Pacers are concerned, salary rollbacks and amnesty clauses wouldn't benefit us at all. We've gone through 3 painful years of housecleaning, and as a result we're fresh out of overpaid players. If anything, an amnesty clause helps the teams in cap hell that we were planning to take advantage of in uneven trades.

It's true though that an amnesty clause could add a few quality free agents to the market, like Michael Finley the last time there was an amnesty clause. More likely though, it will be the likes of Rashard Lewis, Gilbert Arenas, Baron Davis.

800 million would be an average of 27 million per team. That's some serious cutting and I don't expect the players to allow owners to cut team salaries 33-50%.